Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!floyd!whuxle!pyuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Even If I DID Believe ...
Message-ID: <398@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 3-Jan-84 17:59:18 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.398
Posted: Tue Jan  3 17:59:18 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Jan-84 05:22:05 EST
References: <6483@unc.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Piscataway
Lines: 44

Tim puts forth some very important points about the nature of god as
described in the bible.  Clearly if one is to accept the bible as a
*literal* document of universal historical truths, the evidence speaks
for itself as to the true nature of the beast.

Tim says right upfront "EVEN if I did believe", meaning (I assume) that
he does not actually believe that the god described in the bible does
indeed exist, but that if Dave Norris' proof was suddenly "uncovered",
this would fail to make a difference in Tim's belief system (and mine as
well) when it comes to god.

Given the way the bible portrays god, what does this imply about the
nature of Judaeo-Christian thought?  Either 1) there IS a vengeful,
spiteful (but of course loving) god who will burn us all slowly if
we disobey his will, or 2) an effort was made (and is still being made)
to convince people that such a god exists and that they should obey
a set of (some good, some not so good) laws or else suffer eternal
damnation.  Thus the real reason for obeying a set of laws (because
they benefit society as a whole: e.g., do unto others...) is masked
by the notion of "if you don't obey, you'll be turned into molten
jello for eternity!!!"  By doing this, whimsical laws ("Thou shalt not
have sexual relations with frozen food") can be harnessed under the same
umbrella as the other societally beneficial laws.

This sounds to me more like the way one treats children than the way
one treats adults.  Can you imagine telling an adult:  Don't go into the
room that says "DANGER", because a monster will eat you.  Can you
imagine telling an adult:  Don't break the law, because a policeman will
catch you and take you to jail.  Unfortunately, I think we CAN imagine
that second scenario, even though it is hardly any different from the first.
That seems to be the way people (children and adults, both) are indoctrinated
as to why they should obey the laws of society at large.  What happens, in this
case, when a person knows that there is no chance of being caught, and breaks
the law anyway.  My view:  if you can't teach a person a rational reason for
obeying the law, either the law isn't worth upholding, or society can't do its
job of educating its members to be good citizens.

Come to think of it, that sort of hogwash I described above is no way to treat
children, either.  The same rules apply.  Still we go on instilling fear
instead of instilling reason.  This is MY argument with this sort of
religious thinking and the reason I am extremely fearful of its revival in
modern society.
-- 
					Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr